## Facts

- The Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes a “minimum essential coverage” requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), commonly called the individual mandate.
- When enacted, the statute tied noncompliance to a “shared responsibility payment,” which the Supreme Court previously treated as a tax because it produced some federal revenue.
- In 2017, Congress amended the payment amount to $0 while leaving the coverage requirement’s text in place, making the provision effectively unenforceable through a monetary exaction.
- Texas, other states, and two individual plaintiffs sued, arguing the mandate could no longer be sustained as a tax and was unconstitutional, and that the rest of the ACA was inseverable and therefore invalid.
- California, other states, and the U.S. House of Representatives intervened to defend the ACA after the federal government declined to fully defend it.
- The district court held the individual plaintiffs had standing, declared the mandate unconstitutional, and held the entire ACA invalid as inseverable.
- The Fifth Circuit agreed on standing and unconstitutionality, but remanded for further severability analysis.
- The Supreme Court granted review and consolidated the petitions.

## Issues

1. Whether the individual and state plaintiffs had Article III standing to challenge 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a) after Congress set the shared responsibility payment to $0.
2. If standing existed, whether § 5000A(a) was unconstitutional absent a revenue-producing payment.
3. If unconstitutional, whether § 5000A(a) was severable from the remainder of the ACA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded in a 7–2 decision (Justice Breyer).
- The Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed to show a past or future injury fairly traceable to government conduct enforcing the specific provision they challenged.
- As to the individual plaintiffs, the Court concluded their asserted insurance-purchase costs were not traceable to governmental enforcement because the $0 payment made the mandate unenforceable in practice.
- As to the state plaintiffs, the Court concluded their alleged fiscal and administrative burdens were not fairly traceable to § 5000A(a) itself, but to other ACA provisions not properly tied to the challenged, unenforceable mandate.
- Because standing was absent, the Court did not decide the mandate’s constitutionality or severability, leaving the ACA in effect.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires (1) a concrete injury, (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct, and (3) that is likely redressable by the requested relief.
- A plaintiff must connect the claimed injury to the specific statutory provision challenged and to government action implementing or enforcing that provision.
- When a statutory requirement lacks enforcement consequences, voluntary compliance costs generally are not fairly traceable to government conduct for standing purposes.
- Courts may not reach constitutional merits or severability questions where plaintiffs lack standing.

## Conclusion

The Court held that neither the individual nor state challengers established Article III standing to challenge the ACA’s minimum essential coverage provision after the penalty was reduced to zero, so the Court did not address constitutionality or severability and the ACA remained operative.


California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021)